RE_5539

Although Jake's story had its share of disappointment, I didn't find this chapter to be as discouraging as the 4th chapter (Laurie's story). I was encouraged by the caring, nurturing aspects of Jake's home life. Although his mother and father didn't adhere to a strict definition of formal education, they did value reading and learning. I've had much interaction with parents, working class AND middle class, who insist to me (usually at the beginning of the school year) how well their child reads or how clever their child is. Often these parents are correct in assessing their child's eagerness to learn or love of reading; these parents want the best education for their child. Perhaps they are unaware of the institutional aspects of literacy learning. They are focused on the practical aspects of learning, much like Jake's father. Jake was becoming the learner that his father envisioned, a practical learner. Unlike the traditional literacy education experts who view literacy education as a process of moving children FROM their home practices TO more formal textual practices, Jake's father merely hoped that Jake would be academically succesful enough to assume the family business. Is that an insignificant or insufficient goal for Jake? Do we, as a society, believe that all students must attain a certain level of formal education that includes what we once described as "college bound"? I do not mean to suggest that we label students or lower our expectations. Many students mature late and excel beyond their parents' expectations as they enter/complete high school. I merely suggest that we, educators, humbly respect the parents' insight regarding their student. Jake's successes and failures were related to his strong connection to his father and to the values (class and gender) values that father embodied.

How sad that Jake's worlds (school and home) became more and more disparate as he progressed to 2nd and 3rd grade. Yes, he excelled when he was allowed the freedom to choose and when the classroom teacher's practices more closely mirrored the freedom of home. Does this suggest that a classroom teacher must adjust her practices to "suit" her students? Or does this suggest that the classroom teacher must be aware of her student's home lives and be open to modifications where certain students are concerned? How do we as educators help broach that divide between "institutional practices of schooling and working-class values" (p. 99)? Hicks certainly attempted unsuccessfully to do just that. Can a sole practitioner (educator) accomplish such a task without the support of the entire body (of educators)? Hicks did manage to open up a dialogue with Jake and his family. How do we further that sort of dialogue into active practices that benefit the working-class (or even poverty-level) student? I don't have answers; I just have questions, even more than when I first began this class! I do believe, however, that the answer does lie in dialogue! My personal experience is that a willingness to LISTEN to parents and to students often allows for improved trust and an improved learning environment for student and teacher. I especially liked the statement Hicks made at the very end of the chapter (p.135) in support of courageous educators who brave the status quo to find alternative ("creative") means of "helping students negotiate boundaries of race, class, ethnicity, and gender." She points to schools that have attempted to become what she calls "hybrid" spaces. Hicks points out that the most important, most effective, way to begin to bridge the cultural, gender, class divide has nothing to do with methods of instruction but with the ability to initiate a dialogue with the community members (parents, grandparents, students, etc.).

I truly believe that inclusion usully breeds success; classrooms seem to work most efficiently when teachers are empowered (respected and allowed to be creative) and students are empowered (respected and allowed to be authentic). Sadly, my experiences this year can not be described by the above statement. I honestly believe that the strict compliance that was required of me and my students to specific and very narrow, test-driven (formal) instructional methods and strategies actually had a detrimental effect on the learning that was experienced in my classroom. I think that my students, like Jake, couldn't see the relevance of those learning strategies. Like Jake, they thought it was "stupid." I take hope in the encouragement Hicks offers us (educators) if we will bravely follow our hearts and seek alternative practices that speak to us and to our students.
Betsy Baldwin